Traditional surgical procedures for pathologies located deep within the body can cause significant trauma to the intervening tissues. These open procedures often require a long incision, extensive muscle stripping, prolonged retraction of tissues, denervation and devascularization of tissue. Most of these surgeries require a recovery room time of several hours and several weeks of post-operative recovery time due to the use of general anesthesia and the destruction of tissue during the surgical procedure. In some cases, these invasive procedures lead to permanent scarring and pain that can be more severe than the pain leading to the surgical intervention.
Minimally invasive alternatives such as arthroscopic techniques reduce pain, post-operative recovery time and the destruction of healthy tissue. Orthopedic surgical patients have particularly benefited from minimally invasive surgical techniques. The site of pathology is accessed through portals rather than through a significant incision thus preserving the integrity of the intervening tissues. These minimally invasive techniques also often require only local anesthesia. The avoidance of general anesthesia reduces post-operative recovery time and the risk of complications.
Minimally invasive surgical techniques are particularly desirable for spinal and neurosurgical applications because of the need for access to locations deep within the body and the danger of damage to vital intervening tissues. For example, a common open procedure for disc herniation, laminectomy followed by discectomy requires stripping or dissection of the major muscles of the back to expose the spine. In a posterior approach, tissue including spinal nerves and blood vessels around the dural sac, ligaments and muscle must be retracted to clear a channel from the skin to the disc. These procedures normally take at least one-two hours to perform under general anesthesia and require post-operative recovery periods of at least several weeks. In addition to the long recovery time, the destruction of tissue is a major disadvantage of open spinal procedures. This aspect of open procedures is even more invasive when the discectomy is accompanied by fusion of the adjacent vertebrae. Many patients are reluctant to seek surgery as a solution to pain caused by herniated discs and other spinal conditions because of the severe pain sometimes associated with the muscle dissection.
In order to reduce the post-operative recovery time and pain associated with spinal and other procedures, micro-surgical techniques have been developed. For example, in micro-surgical discectomies, the disc is accessed by cutting a channel from the surface of the patient's back to the disc through a small incision. An operating microscope or loupes is used to visualize the surgical field. Small diameter micro-surgical instruments are passed through the small incision and between two laminae and into the disc. The intervening tissues are disrupted less because the incision is smaller. Although these micro-surgical procedures are less invasive, they still involve some of the same complications associated with open procedures, such as injury to the nerve root and dural sac, perineural scar formation, reherniation at the surgical site and instability due to excess bone removal.
Other attempts have been made for minimally invasive procedures to correct symptomatic spinal conditions. One example is chemonucleolysis which involved the injection of an enzyme into the disc to partially dissolve the nucleus to alleviate disc herniation. Unfortunately, the enzyme, chymopapain, has been plagued by concerns about both its effectiveness and complications such as severe spasms, post-operative pain and sensitivity reactions including anaphylactic shock.
The development of percutaneous spinal procedures has yielded a major improvement in reducing recovery time and post-operative pain because they require minimal, if any, muscle dissection and they can be performed under local anesthesia. For example, U.S. Pat. No. 4,545,374 to Jacobson discloses a percutaneous lumbar discectomy using a lateral approach, preferably under fluoroscopic X-ray. This procedure is limited because it does not provide direct visualization of the discectomy site.
Other procedures have been developed which include arthroscopic visualization of the spine and intervening structures. U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,573,448 and 5,395,317 to Kambin disclose percutaneous decompression of herniated discs with a posterolateral approach. Fragments of the herniated disc are evacuated through a cannula positioned against the annulus. The '317 Kambin patent discloses a biportal procedure which involves percutaneously placing both a working cannula and a visualization cannula for an endoscope. This procedure allows simultaneous visualization and suction, irrigation and resection in disc procedures.
Unfortunately, disadvantages remain with these procedures and the accompanying tools because they are limited to a specific application or approach. For example, Jacobson, Kambin and other references require a lateral or a posterolateral approach for percutaneous discectomy. These approaches seek to avoid damage to soft tissue structures and the need for bone removal because it was thought to be impractical to cut and remove bone through a channel. However, these approaches do not address other spinal conditions which may require a mid-line approach, removal of bone or implants.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,439,464 to Shapiro discloses a method and instruments for performing arthroscopic spinal surgeries such as laminectomies and fusions with a mid-line or medial posterior approach using three cannulas. Each of the cannulas requires a separate incision. While Shapiro discloses an improvement over prior procedures which were limited to a posterolateral or lateral approach for disc work, Shapiro's procedure still suffers from many of the disadvantages of known prior percutaneous spinal surgery techniques and tools. One disadvantage of the Shapiro procedure is its requirement of a fluid working space. Another significant detriment is that the procedure requires multiple portals into the patient.
Fluid is required in these prior procedures to maintain the working space for proper function of optics fixed within a prior art cannula and inserted percutaneously. Irrigation, or the introduction of fluid into the working space, can often be logistically disadvantageous and even dangerous to the patient for several reasons. The introduction of fluid into the working space makes hemostasis more difficult and may damage surrounding tissue. Excess fluid nay dangerously dilute the sodium concentration of the patient's blood supply which can cause seizures or worse. The fluid environment can also make drilling difficult due to cavitation. The requirement for a fluid environment generally increases expenses associated with the surgery and adds to the complexity of the surgery, due in part to the relatively high volume of fluid required.
A need has remained for devices and methods that provide for percutaneous minimally invasive surgery for all applications and approaches. A need has also remained for percutaneous methods and devices which do not require a fluid-filled working space, but that can be adapted to a fluid environment if necessary.
A significant need is present in this field for techniques and instruments that permit surgical procedures in the working space under direct vision. Procedures that reduce the number of entries into the patient are also highly desirable. The fields of spinal and neurosurgery have particularly sought devices and techniques that minimize the invasion into the patient and that are streamlined and concise in their application.